Here are a few quotes that I found...and really I was quite disturbed, considering the fact that most people say that CHristianity is based off of being tolerant, forgiving, and showing love....where what I found showed the exact opposite...A little contradictory?

Bible stating its ok to kill...

You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20
Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10
Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16
Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7
Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13
Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20
Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11
Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5

Or the old saying ignorance is bliss.....

Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:10
Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans 16:17

It also mentions Judging others for being different....

Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22
Christians are “of God;” everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19
The non-Christian is “a deceiver and an anti-Christ” 2 John 1:7
Anyone who doesn’t share Paul’s beliefs has “an evil heart.” Hebrews 3:12
False Jews are members of “the synagogue of Satan.” Revelations 2:9, 3:9

And here are two other amazing quotes...

Everyone will have to worship Jesus -- whether they want to or not. Philippians 2:10
A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing. Romans 8:33

Not to mention the incest that is mentioned, Incests is considered wrong, but so much of it is found in the bible....

And Cain went out from the face of the Lord, and dwelt as a fugitive on the earth, at the east side of Eden. And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived, and brought forth Henoch: and he built a city, and called the name thereof by the name of his son Henoch. [Genesis 4:16-17]

Cain was the first born son of Adam and Eve, and Abel was the second. In Genesis 4 we read how Cain kills his brother and is sent east of Eden where he marries a woman and “lays” with her. Because Adam and Eve were the first humans - from whom all people come - Cain’s wife was his sister - and, consequently, all of the early Biblical relationships were incestuous (with the exception of Adam and Eve). Cain, incidentally, was the guy that caused so much trouble for the Mormon’s who believed that the cursed “Mark of Cain” meant black skin, leading them to forbid blacks from entering the Mormon priesthood.

Howbeit, otherwise also she is truly my sister, the daughter of my father, and not the daughter of my mother, and I took her to wife. And after God brought me out of my father’s house, I said to her: Thou shalt do me this kindness: In every place, to which we shall come, thou shalt say that I am thy brother. [Genesis 20:12-13]

Abraham married his half sister Sara in Ur. The King of Gerara took her from Abraham and God sent him a dream to tell him that he would be destroyed for taking a woman who already had a husband (God approved of the marriage between the brother and sister). The King returned Sara to Abraham and they remained together as a couple until she died at the age of 127. Incidentally, Abraham died 38 years later at the ripe old age of 175.

LOT AND HIS DAUGHTERS:

And the elder said to the younger Our father is old, and there is no man left on the earth, to come in unto us after the manner of the whole earth. Come, let us make him drunk with wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the elder went in and lay with her father: but he perceived not neither when his daughter lay down, nor when she rose up. And the next day the elder said to the younger: Behold I lay last night with my father, let us make him drink wine also to night, and thou shalt lie with him, that we may save seed of our father. They made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in, and lay with him: and neither then did he perceive when she lay down, nor when she rose up. So the two daughters of Lot were with child by their father. [Genesis 19:31-36]

It doesn’t really get much more blatant than that. The two daughters had sex with their father, Lot, in order to preserve his family line. Incidentally, this all happened shortly after they had fled from Soddom and Gomorrah which was destroyed by God for its immorality - ironic?. After the events described above, Lot had no memory of it (maybe it was the liquor) and nine months later the daughters gave birth to two sons, Moab (father of the Moabites), and Ammon (father of the Ammonites).

And it came to pass after this, that Amnon the son of David loved the sister of Absalom the son of David, who was very beautiful, and her name was Thamar. And he was exceedingly fond of her, so that he fell sick for the love of her: for as she was a virgin, he thought it hard to do any thing dishonestly with her. [II Kings 13:1-2 ] And Thamar came to the house of Amnon her brother: but he was laid down: and she took meal and tempered it: and dissolving it in his sight she made little messes. And taking what she had boiled, she poured it out, and set it before him, but he would not eat: and Amnon said: Put out all persons from me. And when they had put all persons out, Amnon said to Thamar: Bring the mess into the chamber, that I may eat at thy hand. And when she had presented him the meat, he took hold of her, and said: Come lie with me, my sister. She answered him: Do not so, my brother, do not force me: for no such thing must be done in Israel. Do not thou this folly. [II Kings 13:8-12] But he would not hearken to her prayers, but being stronger overpowered her and lay with her. [II Kings 13:14]

it is a case of incestuous rape! Amnon fell in love with his sister, Thomar, and was counseled by a crafty man to trick her in to having sex with him. He followed the bad advice and when Thomar tried to defend herself, he raped her.

What are your thoughts on this?

Sources:
Biblical intolerance
Top 6 Incestuous Relationships In The Bible

A lot of your quotes are from the Old Testament, and Paul's writings. Not Jesus' teachings. Infact, only one quote of yours is actually from the Gospels. Hardly a valid argument against Jesus.

rarely mentioned? You must be new here. BTW you have posted this in the wrong section.

My thoughts are that you found evilbible.com.
Karlis

If you read my bottom statement you'll find its not an argument against Jesus it a discussion about whats written in the bible.

Its sections that alot of Christians won't bring up.

thats heavy, im still working on Methusala living to be 969 yrs old....

Yes I did, I found it very informative and showed me some stuff I didn't know.

"evilbible" -- as not Christian-in-the-typical-sense as I am, that sounds awfully biased.

However, all those points made in the first post sound terribly scary. And barbaric, de-evolutionary. It's a pity how many people have been killed in the name of "God" - and not just Christianity's God.

Many branches of Christianity like to pretend that these stories in the bible don't exist, or at least are meaningless.

Many hide these parts like dirty underwear under their bed, when company comes a knocking.

The bible is one of the most disgusting books ever written IMO, what makes it even worse is the "fluff n stuff" in between , to distract from the obvious. The blatant contradictions make it even worse

But this belongs in another section.........

how do I move this thread?

So is evilbible totally wrong and takes things out of context or just unpalatable?

The Orchid.

*a cookie if you got that*

Generally, the quickest way is to hit the report button and politely ask a Mod to move the thread. Alternatively, wait until a Mod wanders by and moves it for you (like I just have).

For future reference, if you're quoting from another site, please give a link to the site in question within the opening post.

Tiggs
[Forum Mod Team]

No evilbible.com is right, you can find all of that in the bible.

Exactly. It also grossly misunderstands the context.

its not taking it out of context because those are in the bible if you really look, the little side notes was written by me all I took from evil bible where the quotes.

We have been through many evilbible.com quotes before and it usually turns out those espousing the conclusions made by reading that site are made by those who lack the most knowledge in the Bible. In order to truly disagree with something you have to understand it fully from all sides. If one lacks the Jewish and Christian view, which are different, when approaching the Bible, it is hard to condemn it simply using the 'Bible is evil' view. In other words the only people who will nod and agree with these views are those who lack this understanding of the Bible themselves and in the end it is not convincing anyone who is strongly rooted on a faith based system that used the Bible. On occasion though it can convert the weakest links just as much as appeals to other emotion can covert a few into becoming religious.

If the bible isn't...

Is the Quran? Is Harry Potter?

so your saying that
Deuteronomy 18:20:
But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

Source:Biblegateway.com
and

Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20
evilbible.com

is totally wrong from the other? Because the statement of "kill" and "put to death" are the exact same...

And also I was raised Christian so don't say I lack a Christian view.

Wow! A lot in that Op. I appreciate you gave the chapter and verse, but you also put the comments into your own words. Without going and looking at every one, i cant be sure how many you have correctly interpreted, or what the overall context of them was.

However, i am not an apologist for the ot or for god. For much of the Ot god had a special relationship with a special people. He was fighting a rearguard action, within the limitations of free will, to preserve a people and a culture who had prommised to follow him and obey his words, thus keeping his precepts alive, against many people, and societies who were attempting to wipe them out for many geo political reasons.

Thats my kind of god. He does a deal with you, then he stands by it, and offers both moral and material support. In gods eyes, according to the bible, the only other option for the containment of sin on earth, was to completely destroy corrupted humanity and re-seed it with a non fallen population.

Whats the good of having a powerful god if he doesnt stick up for you. ...

Times change and this is not such a popular concept in spiritual terms. However it is of course the way modern geopolitics operates in the world today..
The next area of concern is the laws and punishments affecting the nature and structure of society. Again, while these seem harsh to our individualistic and self- centred modern minds, they actually were great improvements on other cultural norms of the times(quite civilised in fact), and did lay a legal foundation for the protection of the weakest members of society and for the strengthening of society.

Remember that in those times, a man without, in this order; functioning family unit, functioning clan or tribal unit, and functioning "national" unit (albeit very small nation,s and more like the greek city states) was a dead man. And a woman or child was dead even quicker.

Resources of all types had to be husbanded and organised carefully just to ensure survival. Individualists were often counter survival, and had to be eliminated very quickly, before they caused serious damage to family, tribe or city.

Gods laws set up a very efficient and workable structures to allow this to happen, with considerable ethical and moral power.(Even though we think we have developed better ethical /moral standards in the modern age, i wonder how much we can improve on the 10 commandments, let alone the many social laws of the tribes of israel which protected women, children, slaves, etc as well as set parameters for good diet and a very moral lifestyle)

So no apologies. I see gods laws, and treatments, of people, as good, particularly in the stated context of a battle between good and evil .

Because modern societies have the complexity and resources to allow for behaviour like homosexuality and sex outside marriage, or for young people to go against their parents rules, does not mean that those cultures did.

But more so, In my opinion just because our societies are robust enough to encompass such behaviours, does not make them; right, creative, or productive. The behavioural codes outlined in the OT are as right today as much as then.

To give one example. For families, and thus for society, to function well, one parent should stay home to raise, care for, and educate the children. In nomadic/pastoral or early agrarian societies, only men could physically do the work. Today however, often women are more successful in IT driven economies.

Thus the roles may be reversed, but the principle remains the same. One parent needs to work, and one to care for the children. Today, many economic forces, including govts and unions, are continuing to try and break the nexus between parents and children, by creating a society in which both parents are not only expected to work, but are driven to it, by economic necessity. Again, I believe the bible got this basic principle absolutely correct.

Because the consequences of these behaviours are not as severe, we can afford to reduce the punishments for them, even down to mere social disapproval, but they can never be seen as ethically, or morally, productive, or good for societies.

Of course, this is my personal opinion, but many historians comment on the connection between the decay in social standards/regulation and the many social disabilities which threaten the health of western democracies.

There is a real danger that these disabilities will weaken our societies to the point where they collapse, through internal divisions or, to more cohesive and dynamic societies.

While it places arguably unpalatable restrictions on individual freedoms, a society based on gods laws would actually offer the ultimate protection of individual freedom ie it protects the individuals basic freedom to live and prosper.

You only have to look at our present societies to see we are not doing so well as we might, in these areas, for many of our citizens.

If you want to subvstitute strict moral/ ethical code for god, then by all means do so. In many ways, in practical terms, god and a belief in him is a form of moral ethical code because you follow his precepts.

The point is that for a populace to survive it must surrender some individual rights to that common code, for the society and the individuals to survive

I asked this of someone else in another thread and never received a reply, I was hoping perhaps you could shed some light on the situation. In the book "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" there is a quote that reads: "There is no good, there is no evil. There is only power - and those too weak to take it". I think most people would agree that this is a very disturbing outlook and promotes a negative worldview. In the light of this passage from the book, do you think it a fair assessment that we should stop our children from reading it?

I think your response will provide great insight into the question of the original post

Thanks,

I think the main difference is that Lord Voldermort is widely thought of as the villain of the piece, as opposed to someone that's worthy of eternal worship.

While I agree that evilbible.com takes some verses out of context >the bible also claims insects have four feet, birds are bats, rabbits chew their cud,"no woman shall ever have authority over a man"..............ha ha

"taken out of context" ........really means "IGNORE the nasty parts"

I read the whole bible over & over again, and I get angry when I'm told I have to read the whole bible

In church they sure like to quote it out of context, don't they ?


Here are some logical thoughts on this issue

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0fi_YPAhdg

Still shows the importance of context, and that is my point - context is so important. They aren't always as simple and clear-cut as "he's the bad guy" as my example was (though sometimes they are). Just because one line of text condemns worshipping other gods does not mean that all worshippers are therefore to be executed. Let me demonstrate with one of the examples given in EvilBible.com -

Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16 - this is a direct quote from the original post/EvilBible, and under the heading which read, "Bible says its ok to kill". Now if you read the actual passage, you will find:

If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray..... (verses 12-13). The first thing I note is that it's not "any city" (in direct contradiction to the comment given by EvilBible.com) being referred to, but only cities which have been given to the Israelites by God. And these cities were given as part of the promise God gave Abraham back in Genesis 12:1-3 (hence the reason the area was called "The Promised Land"). Some of them had people in it, some didn't. Some, such as Jericho, had people in it that worshipped God, and these people were spared. It was all a fulfillment of a promise.

This cannot in any way be taken as a wholesale comment that any and every city where people live should be destroyed (and hence cannot in any way be a justification of the premise in the heading of EvilBible that the "Bible says its ok to kill"), because the passage is rooted in a very specific historical event, as the Israelites began to move into the Promised Land. So to contextually restate Deuteronomy 13:12-16, it would involve direct reference to the cities within the Promised Land, including which cities were taken, why they were taken, and what evils the people in the towns had done, not to mention the promises of God in Genesis 12, while additionally referring to the upheaval present during the post-Exodus era.


This is just one example out of those quoted. The quotes are there, but they have been very poorly researched and removed from their historical and cultural contexts and dressed up to look like they should be treated by Christians as standards to live by in the modern era. And the real clincher is that there's going to be some people who will respond to my post by saying that I'm "rationalising" away the words of the Bible.

Just a thought,

A lot of the OP has to do with killing people who don't believe in God. Are you saying theocracy is the way to go? Is going around purging non believers really good for society?

Don't kill, don't steal, don't take your neighbor's woman, honor your parents, those are good for society. No other gods before me, keep holy the sabbath, and no using the lord's name in vain not so much. If the Ten Commandments where made into law you would see destructive consequences from not only from non believers but from not being able to find the doctor on sunday(or saturday) because he isn't aloud to work...or imagine police officers being unable to work the sabbath.

Society has evolved I work every sunday, am not a christian, and have premartial sex when I want to and do not damage society with these things. If I wanted to it with another man society would not crumble the next day.

Agreed. EvilBible does have a tendency to oversimplify things.

Deuteronomy 13:

12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in
13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, Let us go and worship other gods (gods you have not known),
14 then you must enquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you,
15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock.
16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin for ever, never to be rebuilt.
17 None of those condemned things shall be found in your hands, so that the LORD will turn from his fierce anger; he will show you mercy, have compassion on you, and increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your forefathers,

As you've said - what it's talking about is the towns the Israelite's occupied after the Exodus.

However, I think you're missing the point slightly. It's not whether or not it applies to Christianity today. The shock for most people on reading that for the first time is that God sanctioned it, ever.

What is usually not realized by those using this line of reasoning is they totally ignore not just the biblical context but cultural context of the era this was written in. Mr Walker has already touched on this when he stated that, 'For much of the Ot god had a special relationship with a special people', and that the statements within the OT (Old Testament) relate to measures designed only to, 'preserve a people and a culture who had promised to follow him and obey his words, thus keeping his precepts alive, against many people, and societies who were attempting to wipe them out for many geo political reasons.' In this vain they do not apply to the modern believer or the modern world. They are specific only to the ancient Israelites. This is what is not only understood by believers but non-believers who see evilbible.com as grossly lacking in depth, context, and understanding.

If able to understand the rest of his article he not only articulates well the point that 'theocracy' is not the way to go but that modern society lacks a moral compass and without institutions, not necessarily the church, to include this component as a part of society we will suffer social ills. In sum it is foolish to equate the historical aspects of the Bible, and in turn attempt to claim that modern believers believe that such things were not only vital for the ancient Israelites but should also be practiced by modern society. That is a view that simply is not true and whenever evilbible.com fans attempt to claim that point is true most who have more developed and sophisticated views towards modern Christianity, whether they agree or disagree, know that is simply not so.



That then is a more sophisticated view but to be fair hardly one expressed by those who scream foul whenever they quote from evilbible.com. From a religious view we can see in the narrative provided that it was not just necessary but vital that the ancient Israelites took these measures to preserve their culture and the knowledge of God. If not they would have been destroyed or simply merged into the blur of other lost ethnic tribes and nations we find in history. If Christianity had never rose as it did indeed the outlook would have been different but since this belief in the God of Abraham has taken a great place in the world throughout the Common Era of history and has been so influential, more so in the past, one can easily connect the actions taken by the Israelites as the first steps in preserving this knowledge but also making it possible for the wide dissemination of it. Simply put without these mandates the knowledge of God would have been lost in the annals of time just as much as the ancient Israelites would have been.

There are so many other facets as well, including the first Jewish diaspora and because of it Jewish quarters were settled in many urban areas within and without the Roman empire, spread far and wide, which were later used as bases for Christian evangelists, the Roman road system which facilitated for the first time in history ease of passage within the territory that became Rome which was not possible before, the Roman destruction of the Second Temple and Jerusalem and the Jewish diaspora which began from these events, and Roman empire building which allowed for many of the pagan peoples and nations absorbed into their empire creating a spiritual vacuum which allowed much of the population to be receptive to this new doctrine of Christianity in light that their old pagan deities did not protect them from Rome, without any one of these factors history as it relates to Christianity might have had a vastly different outcome.

Concerning the "contextual "biblical theme, my great-grandfather received grave injustice at the hands of a colleague in 1914.

He killed him, of course, my grandfather killed his son and my father killed his grandson.

Unfortunately his great-grandson has not yet produced a son, so I'm wondering whether I should just kill him now or wait a little longer to see if he reproduces, to give my son a chance to carry on the vengeance until the seventh generation ?

Hoping you can help in this difficult dilemma ?





(some guy wrote this on another forum-discussing biblical context)

Thanks clovis for another articulate defence of one of my posts. I appreciate they are long and somewhat complex , but i feel complex issues deserve detailed responses. I thought i made my point clear that a theocracy was not the only model which might work (athough a democratic theocracyif such a thing exists might be one workable model)
These were my last two paragraphs.


Cadetak you comment,



Fair comments, especially from a non christian. my perspective is slightly different.
The sabbath commemmorates gods creation and his parentage of all humanity. If you could have a secular equivalent which reinforced the rule of law and the need for peole to recognise univeral rights over personal rights then that might work, but you would need an equivalently powerful symbol. Of course it is difficult to apply and make work. That is part of th point of a sabbath law. To make it special and memorable. if it was easy for \everyone to follow/obey it would in part lose its significance.The sabbath is one of the laws christians choose to obey out of love for god, In a secular model you might not need this but it would still be a good idea to have a powerful symbolic commemoration which signified social unity and cohesion

I probably did not mean that these laws should be imposed as secular laws but that they should be taught as important moral principles. Iam actually a true sabbath keeper, and i appreciate the difficulties in a society where sunday is designated as the day of rest. In Australia we are so secular that you would hardly know the difference, with shops open everyday and football played on both saturdays and sundays.

These things do do harm to society(just ask the trade union movement in Australia which is fighting to retain days off on the weekend so that families have some time to spend together.) The extension of a working week(even in a staggered form over 7 days has measurable detrimental effects both on family and on society(where weekend sports and social gatherings are becoming almost impossible in some areas)

Being a person who has experienced the real power of god I would not recommend taking his name in vain, although being human I still do so in times of anger and frustration. In fact i do so more often than when I was an athiest. As an athiest it had no significance and thus no purpose, but as a believer it holds more power and is thus more effective. (a bit like using a magic spell or curse when you dont believe it will work compared with when you do)

Anyway, because i know god is real, i believe peole should be taught as much as is known about him and his relationship with humanity. I also believe that blasphemy is a destructive force because of its negativity and connotations, just like racial and ethnic slurs, but i can apppreciate others would not se it this way

The one point you make which i cannot accept, and not just on religious grounds isthat when you have premarital sex you do not harm society. In fact you do.. I do not judge you. thats not my role or place. I dont even say you have to stop. Thats your personal choice. But everyperson who has sex outside marriage harms the fabric of society just like each young person who disrespects their parents does. Individually it may mean little, but collectively such actions are destroying what was a safe workable and productive society.

Very simplyany sex outside marriage damages both the institution and tthe special place of marriage in a society. it doesnt matter what form marriage takes, it is the human social model developed to raise children. This role is absolutely the most important and fundamental role of any society, matched only perhaps by societies basic role to protect all(and particularly the most vulnerable) individual members within it.

Im possibly biased because im a teacher, with a love of children as well (sadly not all teachers have this quality)but if society improves or deteriorates it will be through the education ,in every context, of succeeeding generations.
As the nuclear family has fallen apart(and there aere a host of reasons for this but the contraceptive pill and the changing economic role of women are two big contributors) familys fail to properly raise their children Society tends to give an adequate technical education but not a moral or ethical perspective(and where it does attempt this it gets the moral /ethical standards tragically/laughably wrong)
Eg instead of celebrating all religions and cultures and even atheism organisations such as schools tend to ban any recognition or ceelbration for fear of offending individual rights. (Again a case of individual rights overriding the rights of the society which allows them to exist and prosper.)
Try to look with an unbiased eye at the values and attitudes of children towards them selves other people and the world. While some take interest in emotive issues like global warming or starving kids. Most are self centred amoral materialistic and generally only interested n things which will bring peer approval like sports sex looking good or getng drunk. Of course teenagers have been a bit like this for ever, but the differnce is that once society regulated and curtailed these attitudes and behaviours, now it largely feeds and encourages them. Parents have abrogated their roles as leaders and disciplinarians to become friends with little or no power to influence their children.

And yes, in brief , when people have sex outside of a marriage they lessen the authority and place of marriage in society, They also tend to indicate that sex is a recreational pursuit which does not require emotional or psychological context. this is untrue, and particularly, untrue in adolescents where emotions and ego are most raw and unchecked. Sex is possibly the most powerful natural force in human existence and it deserves to be treated with respect and caution

Then there are all the practical dangers from infection, pregnancy, and families with absolutely no cohesion because any 4 kids might have 4 different fathers and two or more mothers. . A person who has one sexual partner, who is also faith ful to them need not worry about any such things, with the possible exception of pregnancy, but then thats what marriage is designed for; the support and protection of a mother and dependent child, and later, the nurture, development and social education of the children from the marriage.

Ps personally while i see homosexuality as an unnatural and nonproductive pursuit i would still be a lot happier if you were in a long term relationship(a form of marriage) with that person. It would say something about the respect you had for yourself, the other person, and the act of sex itself./

Many societies have functioned effectively with more homosexuality in them thna ours. It is the social context of sex which determines if it strengthens or diminishes a society.

In my judgement (in our particular society) homosexual sex does do damage to the nature of that society, but no more, and perhaps less, than any sex outside of a marrriage.

None of ths is something im going to get hot under the collar about , but the blindness and refusal to see certain realities changing the face of our society over the last few decades does concern me. I want to live my last couple of decades in a society which is functioning well enough to care for me, and which will not self destruct under either internal or external pressures.

Do Christians find it easy to tease out the threads of what is applicable for now and what God only wanted back then?

It is really not such a difficult concept to understand. This forum though has made me realize that those without any biblical understanding have such a hard time grasping that concept.

Here is a good place to begin for the uninformed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_law

The Old Testament is beautiful and one can learn much from it, clearly though the way I am using the term 'learn' is not how non-believers shall perceive it, but for Christians the greatest example is the New Testament. If something is clarified as sin within the NT then Christians can consider it as binding towards the modern church. Likewise there is much to learn in the New Testament too by example. Blaspheming other deities comes to mind...it is a no-no. Allowing someone to offer personal translations that do not match up with what is written is also forbidden by the astute believer.

If one believes Christians are just picking and choosing what to apply then they truly do not understand Christianity or the New Testament. Jesus came not to break the law but fulfill it. If one truly wants to learn our view they can simply read some of the following passages.











The whole of this chapter of Ephesians is great in understanding the differences between Jews and Gentiles. There is none now for those who choose Christ.





Of course we cannot dismiss these two passages.






source

I thought he was implying that similar methods should be used in modern day society. Not the killing but he suggests that premartial sex, homosexuality, and other rights should be given up or society will crumble. We have laws and morals against murder, theft, destruction, etc. which morals do you propose we ad to our moral compasses? The problem isn't our morals or ethics but that we seem to ignore them. Some of the things we view as right are wrong differ based on perspective or opinion.

The things listed in the OP are justifiable given the historical context...whether it is ethical or moral is of course debateable.

For the record I never even visited evilbible.com I thought it was just a nickname you guys gave to any website that bashed christianity...I feel stupid now lol

Homosexuality is unnatural?? If it is wide spread in the animal kingdom and animals only ever do what is natural or instinctual then how can it be unnatural?



Homosexual (as well as bisexual) behavior is widespread in the animal kingdom. Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species and the motivations for and implications of their behaviors have yet to be fully understood as most species have yet to be studied.[3] A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.[4][5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals


Mammals displaying homosexual behavior

* African Buffalo[21]
* African Elephant[22]
* Agile Wallaby[23]
* Amazon River Dolphin(Boto)[19]
* American Bison[21][24]
* Antelope[25]
* Asian Elephant[22]
* Asiatic Lion[26]
* Asiatic Mouflon[27]
* Atlantic Spotted Dolphin[19]
* Australian Sea Lion[28]
* Barasingha[29]
* Barbary Sheep[30]
* Beluga[31]
* Bharal[32]
* Bighorn Sheep[30]
* Black Bear[33]
* Blackbuck[34]
* Black-footed Rock Wallaby[23]
* Black-tailed Deer[29]
* Bonnet Macaque[14]
* Bonobo[35][36][37]
* Bottlenose Dolphin[19][38]
* Bowhead Whale[19]
* Brazilian Guinea Pig[39]
* Bridled Dolphin[19]
* Brown Bear[33]
* Brown Capuchin[40]
* Brown Long-eared Bat[41]
* Brown Rat[42]
* Buffalo[30]
* Caribou[43]
* Cat (domestic)[44]
* Cattle (domestic)[45]
* Cheetah[26]
* Collared Peccary[46]
* Commerson's Dolphin[19]
* Common Brushtail Possum[47]
* Common Chimpanzee[48]
* Common Dolphin[31]
* Common Marmoset[49]
* Common Pipistrelle[50]
* Common Raccoon[51]
* Common Tree Shrew[52]
* Cotton-top Tamarin[53]
* Crab-eating Macaque[14]
* Crested Black Macaque[14]
* Cui[54]
* Dall's Sheep[30]
* Daubenton's Bat[41]
* Dog (domestic)[55]
* Doria's Tree Kangaroo[23]
* Dugong[56]
* Dwarf Cavy[39]
* Dwarf Mongoose[57]
* Eastern Cottontail Rabbit[58]
* Eastern Grey Kangaroo[23]
* Elk[29]
* Euro (a subspecies of wallaroo)[23]
* European Bison[21]
* Fallow Deer[29]
* False Killer Whale[19]
* Fat-tailed Dunnart[59]
* Fin Whale[19]
* Fox[60]
* Gazelle[25]
* Gelada Baboon[61]
* Giraffe[25][4][62]
* Goat (Domestic)[30]
* Golden Monkey[63]
* Gorilla[64]



* Grant's Gazelle[25]
* Grey-headed Flying Fox[41]
* Grey Seal[28]
* Grey squirrel[65]
* Grey Whale[19][66]
* Grey Wolf[67]
* Grizzly Bear[33]
* Guinea Pig (Domestic)[39]
* Hamadryas Baboon[68]
* Hamster (Domestic)[39]
* Hanuman Langur[69]
* Harbor Porpoise[70]
* Harbor Seal[28]
* Himalayan Tahr[71]
* Hoary Marmot[72]
* Horse (domestic)[73]
* Human (see gay, sexuality)
* Indian Fruit Bat[41]
* Indian Muntjac[74]
* Indian Rhinoceros[75]
* Japanese Macaque[14]
* Javelina[76]
* Kangaroo Rat[42]
* Killer Whale[19]
* Koala[77]
* Kob[78][79]
* Larga Seal[28]
* Least Chipmunk[80]
* Lechwe[81]
* Lesser Bushbaby[82]
* Lion[26][83][84][85][86][87]
* Lion-tailed Macaque[14]
* Lion Tamarin[88]
* Little Brown Bat[41]
* Livingstone's Fruit Bat[41]
* Long-eared Hedgehog[89]
* Long-footed Tree Shrew[90]
* Macaque[91]
* Markhor[92]
* Marten[93]
* Matschie's Tree Kangaroo[23]
* Moco[94]
* Mohol Galago[82]
* Moor Macaque[14]
* Moose[95]
* Mountain Goat[30]
* Mountain Tree Shrew[96]
* Mountain Zebra[97]
* Mouse (domestic)[98]
* Moustached Tamarin[99]
* Mule Deer[29]
* Musk-ox[100]
* Natterer's Bat[41]
* New Zealand Sea Lion[28]
* Nilgiri Langur[101]
* Noctule[102]
* North American Porcupine[103]
* Northern Elephant Seal[28]
* Northern Fur Seal[28]
* Northern Quoll[104]
* Olympic Marmot[105]
* Orangutan[106]
* Orca[31]
* Pacific Striped Dolphin[19]
* Patas Monkey[107]
* Pere David's Deer[29]
* Pig (Domestic)[108]
* Pig-tailed Macaque[14]
* Plains Zebra[109]



* Polar Bear[33]
* Pretty-faced Wallaby[23]
* Proboscis Monkey[110]
* Pronghorn[111]
* Przewalski's Horse[112]
* Puku[113]
* Quokka[114]
* Rabbit[115]
* Raccoon Dog[116]
* Red Deer[29]
* Red Fox[117]
* Red Kangaroo[23]
* Red-necked Wallaby[23]
* Red Squirrel[118]
* Reeves's Muntjac[119]
* Reindeer[43]
* Rhesus Macaque[14]
* Right Whale[19]
* Rock Cavy[39]
* Rodrigues Fruit Bat[41]
* Roe Deer[29]
* Rufous Bettong[120]
* Rufous-naped Tamarin[53]
* Sea Otter[121]
* Serotine Bat[41]
* Shawn Gilly
* Sheep (Domestic)[30][122]
* Siamang[123]
* Sika Deer[29]
* Slender Tree Shrew[124]
* Sooty Mangabey[125]
* Sperm Whale[19]
* Spinifex Hopping Mouse[126]
* Spinner Dolphin[19]
* Spotted Hyena[18][16]
* Spotted Seal[28]
* Squirrel Monkey[127]
* Striped Dolphin[19]
* Stuart's Marsupial Mouse[128]
* Stumptail Macaque[14]
* Swamp Deer[29]
* Swamp Wallaby[23]
* Takhi[112]
* Talapoin[129]
* Tammar Wallaby[23]
* Tasmanian Devil[130]
* Tasmanian Rat Kangaroo[23]
* Thinhorn Sheep[30]
* Thomson's Gazelle[25]
* Tiger[131]
* Tonkean Macaque[14]
* Tucuxi[132]
* Urial[133]
* Vampire Bat[41]
* Verreaux's Sifaka[134]
* Vervet[135]
* Vicuna[136]
* Walrus[137][138]
* Wapiti[139]
* Warthog[140]
* Waterbuck[141]
* Water Buffalo[30]
* Weeper Capuchin[40]
* Western Grey Kangaroo[23]
* West Indian Manatee[142]
* Whiptail Wallaby[23]
* White-faced Capuchin[40]
* White-fronted Capuchin[40]
* White-handed Gibbon[143]
* White-lipped Peccary[144]
* White-tailed Deer[29]
* Wild Cavy[39]
* Wild Goat[30]
* Wisent[21]
* Yellow-footed Rock Wallaby[23]
* Yellow-toothed Cavy[39]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mamma...sexual_behavior

Birds displaying homosexual behavior:

* Acorn Woodpecker[18]
* Adelie Penguin[19]
* American Flamingo[20]
* American Herring Gull[21]
* Anna's Hummingbird[22]
* Australian Shelduck[23]
* Aztec Parakeet[24]
* Bengalese Finch (Domestic)[25]
* Bank Swallow[26]
* Barn Owl[27]
* Bicolored Antbird[28]
* Black-billed Magpie[29]
* Black-crowned Night Heron[30]
* Black-headed Gull[31]
* Black-rumped Flameback[18]
* Black Stilt[32]
* Black Swan[16][33]
* Black-winged Stilt[32]
* Blue-backed Manakin[34]
* Blue-bellied Roller[35]
* Blue Tit[36]
* Blue-winged Teal[37]
* Brown-headed Cowbird[38]
* Budgerigar (Domestic)[39]
* Buff-breasted Sandpiper[40]
* Calfbird[41]
* California Gull[42]
* Canada Goose[43]
* Canary-winged Parakeet[24]
* Caspian Tern[44]
* Cattle Egret[45]
* Chaffinch[46]
* Chicken (Domestic)[47]
* Chilean Flamingo[20]
* Chiloe Wigeon[37]
* Chinstrap penguin[1]
* Cliff Swallow[26]
* Common Gull[42]
* Common Murre[48]
* Common Shelduck[23]
* Crane spp.[49]
* Dusky Moorhen[49]
* Eastern Bluebird[36]
* Egyptian Goose[23]
* Elegant Parrot[24]
* Emu[50]
* Eurasian Oystercatcher[51]
* European Jay[29]
* European Shag[52]



* Galah[24]
* Gentoo Penguin[19]
* Golden Bishop Bird[53]
* Golden Plover[51]
* Gray-breasted Jay[29]
* Gray-capped Social Weaver[54]
* Gray Heron[45]
* Great Cormorant[52]
* Greater Bird of Paradise[55]
* Greater Flamingo[20]
* Greater Rhea[50]
* Green Sandpiper[56]
* Greenshank[57]
* Greylag Goose[58]
* Griffon Vulture[27]
* Guianan c***-of-the-Rock[14][59]
* Guillemot[48]
* Hammerhead (also known as Hammerkop)[60]
* Herring Gull[21]
* Hoary-headed Grebe[61]
* Hooded Warbler[62]
* House Sparrow[38]
* Humboldt Penguin[19]
* Ivory Gull[63]
* Jackdaw[29]
* Kestrel[27]
* King Penguin[19]
* Kittiwake[64]
* Laughing Gull[65]
* Laysan Albatross[48]
* Lesser Flamingo[20]
* Lesser Scaup Duck[23]
* Little Blue Heron[45]
* Little Egret[45]
* Long-tailed Hermit Hummingbird[22]
* Lory spp.[24]
* Mallard[37]
* Masked Lovebird[24]
* Mealy Amazon Parrot[24]
* Mew Gull[42]
* Mexican Jay[66]
* Musk Duck[23]
* Mute Swan[67]
* Ocellated Antbird[28]
* Ocher-bellied Flycatcher[68]
* Orange Bishop Bird[69]
* Orange-fronted Parakeet[24]
* Ornate Lorikeet[24]
* Ostrich[50]
* Peach-faced Lovebird[24]
* Pied Flycatcher[70]
* Pied Kingfisher[35]
* Pigeon (Domestic)[71]



* Powerful Owl[72]
* Purple Swamphen[49]
* Raggiana's Bird of Paradise[73]
* Raven[29]
* Razorbill[48]
* Red-backed Shrike[36]
* Red Bishop Bird[74]
* Red-faced Lovebird[24]
* Redshank[75]
* Red-shouldered Widowbird[76]
* Regent Bowerbird[77]
* Ring-billed Gull[42]
* Ring Dove[78]
* Rock Dove[79]
* Roseate Tern[44]
* Rose-ringed Parakeet[24]
* Ruff[40]
* Ruffed Grouse[80]
* Sage Grouse[81]
* San Blas Jay[29]
* Sand Martin[26]
* Satin Bowerbird[82]
* Scarlet Ibis[20]
* Scottish Crossbill[46]
* Senegal Parrot[24]
* Sharp-tailed Sparrow[83]
* Silver Gull[21]
* Silvery Grebe[61]
* Snow Goose[43]
* Steller's Sea Eagle[84]
* Superb Lyrebird[85]
* Swallow-tailed Manakin[34]
* Tasmanian Native Hen[49]
* Tree Swallow[86]
* Trumpeter Swan[87]
* Turkey (Domestic)[88]
* Victoria's Riflebird[89]
* Wattled Starling[38]
* Western Gull[90]
* White-fronted Amazon Parrot[24]
* White Stork[91]
* Wood Duck[37]
* Yellow-backed Lorikeet[24]
* Yellow-rumped Cacique[92]
* Zebra Finch (Domestic)[93]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_birds...sexual_behavior

Fish displaying homosexual behavior:


* Amazon molly[17]
* Blackstripe topminnow[18]
* Bluegill Sunfish[19]
* Char[20]
* Grayling[16]
* European Bitterling[21]
* Green swordtail[22]
* Guiana leaffish[23]
* Houting Whitefish[24]
* Jewel Fish[25]
* Least Darter (Microperca punctulata)[26]
* Mouthbreeding Fish sp.[27]
* Salmon spp.[28]
* Southern platyfish[29]
* Ten-spined stickleback[30]
* Three-spined stickleback[30]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anima...sexual_behavior

Other vertebrates displaying homosexual behavior:

* Anole sp.[31]
* Appalachian Woodland Salamander[32]
* Bearded Dragon[33]
* Black-spotted Frog[34]
* Broad-headed Skink[35]
* Checkered Whiptail Lizard[33]
* Chihuahuan Spotted Whiptail Lizard[33]
* Common Ameiva[33]
* Common Garter Snake[36]
* Cuban Green Anole[31]
* Desert Grassland Whiptail Lizard[33]
* Desert Tortoise[37]
* Fence Lizard[33]
* Five-lined Skink[35]
* Gopher (Pine) Snake[38]
* Green Anole[31]
* Inagua Curlytail Lizard[33]
* Jamaican Giant Anole[31]
* Laredo Striped Whiptail Lizard[33]
* Largehead Anole[31]
* Mountain Dusky Salamander[32]
* Mourning Gecko[39]
* Plateau Striped Whiptail Lizard[33]
* Red Diamond Rattlesnake[40]
* Red-tailed Skink[35]
* Side-blotched Lizard[33]
* Speckled Rattlesnake[41]
* Tengger Desert Toad[42]
* Water Moccasin[43]
* Western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)[44]
* Western Banded Gecko[39]
* Whiptail Lizard spp.[33]
* Wood Turtle[45]

[edit] Insects and other invertebrates displaying homosexual behavior:

* Acanthocephalan Worms[46]
* Alfalfa Weevil[47]
* Australian Parasitic Wasp sp.[48]
* Bean weevil sp.[49]
* Bedbug and other Bug spp.[50][51]
* Blister Beetle spp.[52]
* Blood-flukes (Schistosoma)[53]
* Blowfly[54]
* Box Crab[55]
* Broadwinged Damselfly sp.[56]
* Cabbage (Small) White (Butterfly)[57]
* Checkerspot Butterfly[57]
* Clubtail Dragonfly spp.[58]
* Cockroach spp.[59]
* Common Skimmer Dragonfly spp.[58]
* Creeping Water Bug sp.[60]
* Cutworm[61]
* Digger Bee[62]
* Dragonfly spp.[58]
* Eastern Giant Ichneumon (wasp)[48]
* Eucalyptus Longhorned Borer[63]
* Field Cricket sp.[64]
* Fruit Fly spp.[65]
* Glasswing Butterfly[57]
* Grape Berry Moth[66]
* Grape Borer[63]
* Green Lacewing[67]
* Harvest Spider sp.[68]
* Hawaiian Orb-Weaver (spider)[68]
* Hen Flea[69]
* House Fly[70]
* Ichneumon wasp sp.[48]
* Incirrate Octopus spp.[55]
* Japanese Scarab Beetle[71]
* Jumping spider sp.[68]
* Larch Bud Moth[66]
* Large Milkweed Bug[72]



* Large White (Pieris brassicae)[73]
* Long-legged Fly spp.[74]
* Mazarine Blue[75]
* Mediterranean Fruit Fly[65]
* Mexican White[76]
* Midge sp.[74]
* Migratory locust[77]
* Mite sp.[74]
* Monarch Butterfly[57]
* Narrow-winged Damselfly spp.[56]
* Parsnip Leaf Miner[74]
* Pomace Fly[74]
* Prea[78]
* Queen Butterfly[57]
* Red Ant sp.[74]
* Red Flour Beetle[79]
* Reindeer Warble Fly[74]
* Rosechafer[74]
* Rove Beetle spp.[80]
* Scarab Beetle (Melolonthine)[81]
* Screwworm Fly[74]
* Silkworm Moth[66]
* Sociable Weaver[74]
* Southeastern Blueberry Bee[62]
* Southern Green Stink Bug[82]
* Southern Masked Chafer[74]
* Southern One-Year Canegrub[74]
* Spreadwinged Damselfly spp.[56]
* Spruce Budworm Moth[66]
* Stable Fly sp.[74]
* Stag Beetle spp.[83]
* Tsetse Fly[74]
* Water Boatman Bug[84]
* Water Strider spp.[85]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anima...sexual_behavior

If this isnt natural then I dont know what is.



Also cannibalism is natural in the animal kingdom but doesnt make it right in our ethical human society. However unlike cannibalism, homosexuality is completely and utterly compatible with ethics and bible ethics:

1: One can be gay and do unto others as they would have others do unto them.

2: One can be gay and love God with all their heart and their neighbour as themselves.

3: One can be gay and love their enemies

The list goes on.

I haven't had time to read this entire thread yet, but I can guarantee that it has already been said that these passages have been taken out of context and/or do not exist. Not true in either case! One of the main reasons I left Christianity was exactly what was quoted above by R2008--and much more. The more I read the Bible, the more I saw Yahweh's awful brutality. I could no longer justify such brutality by believing "God had a reason" or "We're God's creation, therefore He can do as he wishes". In fact, I recently had a discussion with a gentleman named Douglas over at Amazon dealing with this same issue. He stated that the Bible was the standard of morality ... and without it, we would not know right from wrong, good from evil. Obviously, I did not agree. Here was my response ...

DOUG: “We, as humans, have a moral conscience and can distinguish right from wrong, nice from mean, good from evil, etc.”

SEAN: Yes, because of thousands of years of social evolution (e.g. Code of Hammurabi, Egyptian Book of the Dead et al predate the Bible by centuries) and commonsense. It, IMHO, has absolutely nothing to do with a deity.

DOUG: “Without a God to set a moral standard such as this, we wouldn't even have this knowledge.”

SEAN: I have heard this argument a million times. I respectfully disagree. As I mentioned above, it has to do with social evolution. And if you speak of the Ten Commandments--which I assume you believe and follow--as God’s standard of morality ... you’re in for some serious difficulties! Why? Because commandments ...

#1 (Deut. 17:1-5, 13:6-10, Ex. 22:20, Mat. 16:16)

#3 (Lev. 24:16)

#4 (Ex. 35:2)

#5 (Exodus 21:17, Lev. 20:9)

#6 (Leviticus 24:21 et al which contradicts #3 & #4)

#7 (Lev. 20:10)

#8 (Deut. 24:7)

... all call for the death penalty (shown in parentheses) if broken!!! The penalty for breaking the 2nd commandment is retribution by a jealous god upon the children (which contradicts Deut. 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20) for generations ... because of someone elses sins!!! And the 9th commandment calls for retribution instead of forgiveness (Deut. 19:19)!!!

You call that the standard of morality, Doug?! I won’t even touch the some 600 plus commandments that call for death etc.!!!

And you speak of God as loving little children ... Really?! Why, then, does God allow them to suffer? Millions of children every year die of starvation and curable diseases. This should not be. If we are God's creation, his children, then he his our parent and responsible for our well-being. If he dropped manna from heaven to save the Israelites for forty years, why not those starving in Africa and around the world?! And just read the Scriptures ... God slaughters children on a massive scale! I think Psalm 137 is a perfect example. King David supposedly wrote this psalm dealing with revenge against the Babylonians. His desire is to bash infants apart on rocks as revenge ... and he feels happy about it! And who is King David?

God's favorite!

Ps 137:8,9 - O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!

I wonder what role mothers and infants played in taking the Israelites into captivity?

That said, how can a god who created and does evil --Isaiah 45:7 (KJV): I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and CREATE EVIL: I Yahweh do all these things--be the standard barer for morality?!

And if you’re going to counter this with the NT and Jesus ... Jesus stated clearly in Matthew 5:17-20 that the Law shall stand until heaven and earth pass away. That has yet to happen.

Question:--What implication, if any, does all of this hold for the New Testament?

Answer--The fact is that it holds very serious implications for the New Testament. Oddly enough there are those who seem determined to hold on to the "truths" of the New Testament regardless of what fate may befall the Old Testament. From the Christian standpoint such a position is completely irrational. The Old Testament provides the foundation upon which the New Testament rests. For example, without the Genesis account of the fall of man, the redemption, i. e., the suffering of Jesus makes no sense. In John 5:46-47 it plainly states that not to believe in the laws of Moses is not to believe in Jesus Christ. Also, there's all those Old Testament prophecies used to certify Jesus as the long awaited Jewish messiah.--The Ten Commandments, Cable, Louis, W.

Again, I left Christianity for many of the reasons Rocker-2008 pointed out in his opening statement. It took three years of a hellish de-conversion to finally accept the fact that this was true -- Yahweh is a brutal, jealous, hateful, vengeful God created by men. This is/was simply an attempt to explain - - to personify - - the unexplainable. If there is a God out there, IT, certainly would not be anything like the Bible-God -- at least in my humble opinion. It seems to me, that if there is some mighty invisible force out there, that it is taking a hands-off approach to ITS creation. Of course, none of us will know the "truth" until we finally pass from this existence.

That said, It is so wonderful to be free from the bondage of orthodox religion. To be able to entertain and explore all forms of spirituality without the fear of eternal damnation is incredibly liberating. I am very happy being agnostic.

Most kindly,

Sean

Well said BNW!!!!!

MK,

Sean

I'm not going to debate you on the sex thing because its going to end up derailing the thread but oh man no offense but I would hate to live your idea of a utopia society.

Remember it is not the strong who survive but those most willing to adapt...and we humans are good at adapting. We cannot go back to the ways of old we have progressed to far but if necessary we will find a way to adapt to the changes.

Well I cannot speak for Mr Walker concerning that but this is not Old Testament belief with one deciding what should apply today and what should not but is New Testament mandates for the modern believer. Again the keyword is believer for those who do not believe in the Bible should not have to follow it.

What I am sure me and Mr Walker agree upon is that there is a benefit behind some of the New Testament teachings that tell us something is sinful and that we could learn a lesson from it. It does not necessarily have to be based on the Bible so let us just disregard that it even exists for now.

Our secular experiment within society is clearly failing on some levels. That is not to say that it we should resort to theocracy but our society needs to be augmented by a moralizing agent soon. If we allow the media to be that socializing agent what chance of societal cohesion and benefit will occur? The messages the media sends out regarding sex are based on consumerism, making a profit, and not really on what is best for society. Society has many social ills that are due to many having unhealthy attitudes towards sex. To have a love for sex instead of understanding that sex should be reserved for love. Strictly from an ethical standpoint and a moral standpoint how many negative effects does *spam filter* cause within contemporary society?

The nuclear family unit is degraded by many but who truly as a child did not wish for two parents who loved each other if that is not what they got at home? Who truly believes it is not the best structure for being the basic building block of society? Sure there will be jaded opinions of those who have divorced or had an abusive parent but ideally would they have not wished for a better spouse that lasted the test of time and a parent that cared? Anyone who says they are better off alone are by switching partners every few months or years is lying. This is an assumption but one I am willing to wager the farm on.

The issues are deep and no, the Bible is not the answer for them, it can be, but society is not willing to accept it, and there are examples of cultures who do not rely on it, but who at the same time lack the social ills that we have in the West. There has to be answers and solutions, none simple, many complex, since every factor is inter working with each other to give us the societal landscape we have today which is bleak on the moral front even for all our advances in technology.

Some will say the planet is overpopulated and people should not have children anymore anyways so who cares about the nuclear family unit. Truly though in the long term situations it will be Hispanic Catholics and White Fundamentalist, and a mix of those two, at least in America, who will prosper in the future, for regardless of planet sustainability, once a population stops having children, another segment of that population who is all to eager to have them will take their place. We view ourselves as better than our ancestors but there was something about their societies, nations and tribes, that wished to sustain themselves. Truly our attitude today is going to cause the extinction of many a family line.

In the end this is how social ills propagate instead of us in a healthy manner. Parents not loving each other who have teens viewing sex in dysfunctional terms which will then allow them to grow up into adults that have no meaning of what sex actually is beginning a destructive cycle. What love actually is seems to have been lost unless of course it is love of self, if sex is just for personal gratification, and this becomes a societal value, as it has already, then the societal repercussions will continue to plague us.

I will conclude with a few quotes from a magazine and offers us insight into the American social scenery of 1848:

We should also take note that historically feminism had two camps and while one side "saw liberalized divorce as one more step on the road to woman's full equality" the "other feminists, however, feared destroying the family, which they regarded not only as a woman's special realm and responsibility but as the as the very foundation of civilization." Also, "old-line feminists wanted to free women from the abuses of sex, new moralists for the pleasures of it".

Feldman, Ellen. "Till Divorce Do Us Part." American Heritage Nov. 2000: 42.

I just plain fail to see how having sex before marriage is bad...I do not see a direct link that by doing this I am destroying marriage I can still get married one day and be the beacon of society that you desire.

I desire nothing of that sort and am just observing and translating that into an opinion regarding the social condition...the only person you have to prove you are able to love even with what others consider unhealthy attitudes towards sex is yourself and whoever you claim to love.

Your post shows the typical lack of understanding of Judaism that most people display.


These verses all talk about issues which warrant capital punishment in Jewish law. However, in Jewish law, in order to execute a person for any of the above crimes there are pre-requisites. They are as follows:

1. The person can not be executed if the crime was committed under duress. If you were forced to worship another God (ie someone held a gun to your head) you are not guilty.

2. The person who committed any of the above offenses must know that what they are doing is a crime.

3. Someone must have warned the person that they were committing a crime.

4. The person must have continued to commit the crime even after being warned.

5. The person must be tried before 71 judges.

6. There must be at least two witnesses stating that all the above conditions were met.

7. Execution cannot be given on circumstancial evidence

8. The witnesses who testify to seeing the crime occur must be so sure that they saw it happen that they must be the first ones to start the execution.

9. If a witness hesitates or is unsure at all, the person cannot be executed.

10. The person can only be condemned for murder if the whole judicial assembly (71 judges) agrees unanimously that the person should be executed.


The chances of anyone getting executed for these crimes is very small. In fact, the only way a person would get executed for these things is to be a wild and out of control person who shows obvious contempt for the laws, which are exactly the kind of people that the Law is designed to root out.

What critics must realize, is that these laws are not saying that the average Joe should go murder the guy living next to him that's of a different religion. It's simply giving the law in its simplest form. The Jewish Code of Law is actually quite complex and I would recommend that you study the Talmud under a Talmudic teacher.


A christian view is irrelevant. What you need is a Jewish view to understand.

Having listened to many....sermons over the years both as a Christian and a Ex-Christian I heard many times Bible verses being taken out of context and used. But when a non-believer does the same....whats the difference?


BTW the Old Testament and the New Testament are still parts of the same.....book.

Violent Bible verses from a violent religion



I agree....just as one does not buy a car (new or used) without first test driving it